Nokia app increases pressure on camera makers to smarten up

Nokia has shown-off an app including photographic features unlike anything yet available in compact cameras - suggesting camera makers will need to consider apps if they're to remain competitive. The Camera Extras app includes a 'Smart Group Shot' mode that takes five images and chooses the 'best' faces for each of the subjects. It's also possible to manually select which face you want for each of your subject. It's a useful and consumer-friendly feature that helps to underline the challenge that compact camera makers face - competing not just with the convenience and connectivity of smartphones, but also their app-based approach that allows extra features to be offered, separately from the normal model development cycle.

This flexibility, and the increased software development effort that a potentially profitable app market can help to foster, means smartphones risk making conventional compacts look out-of-date almost as soon as they're released. While several camera makers are looking to offer the convenience of improved connectivity, the existence of this kind of feature-adding photo app suggests that they might need to offer app-ready cameras, if they're to really compete with the rise of the smartphone.

Camera Extras was developed by Scalado (a software maker all-but bought-out by the Finnish handset maker last week), which has caught our attention before for its difference-based 'Remove' technology (that sadly hasn't appeared as a standalone app, despite the company recently starting to sell apps to the public). The Smart Group Shot feature appears to be an implementation of the company's 'Rewind' technology, that is also likely to underpin a similar feature RIM has demoed for its forthcoming BB10 operating system.

Comments

Most people seem to have not read the article correctly. It clearly states;It's also possible to manually select which face you want for each of your subject. So you don't have to let the camera choose. You can choose.I am a 'single camera' guy. Done my time carting around enough kit, so I really want an 'all in one' deal. For me the phone will never replace my camera. However my camera is not always used for serious photographic work. Sometimes I am simply taking 'record shots' and often I find that I have captured one person in the group blinking. I think that this could be a useful app in many situations. And....yes....you would be surprised how in many instances only the head or facial expression moves.Well done Nokia. A useful and interesting little app. Maybe not for the serious creative photographer, but certainly for us mere mortals.

Optimally it would be a great thing personally to have a camera only model, phones change too quickly anyway. I'd love just the camera as I hardly use phones. I'd love something like this made more compact without the phone guts that can take high quality images that I could carry in a pocket with ease. Dream on ;-)

Nokia could have a camera only line I suppose, likely not their forte'.

Yes you are correct and more especially when you consider Nokia 808 PureView which pretty much blows all viewfinderless cameras out of the water in both useability and image quality together with amazing photo print quality shots which print A3 size prints at 5 MP from the original 38/41 MP by using interpolation and the very advanced Carl Zeiss optics that provide an f2 aperture opening right through the zoom range. Why would one buy an advanced Panny LX5 or similar class camera when the smartphone camera is superior and has apps with it when it gets to LUMIA windows phone 8 Smartphones? Add to that the fact that many cameras of that class can not be operated very well unless you have Asian sized fingers and that counts me out for most small cameras.

The Panasonic LX5 and the Canon S95 have optical zooms. You can mount filters on the LX5 and a flash too.

Also I'd like more information on the successes and failures of plastic lenses--the Nokia 808 uses a plastic lens. (It may very well work, but to use plastic in purportedly high quality optics raises the immediate question of other plastic lens examples from Zeiss.)

I do not believe compacts are getting out of date. What about optical zoom ? phone cameras do not have optical zoom. Besides compact cameras will get larger sensors . In other words : They will keep their edge compared to cell phone cameras .There always will be enthusiasts that are prepared to carry some extra weight in order to get better quality. Billions love photography.

One big problem with camera phones ...they are expensive or you have to pay a monthly fee ...my little panasonic p&s doesn't comes with a monthly charge and I don't have to keep it under a two year contract ...and it was under 200 bucks ...most of the camera phones we are talking about are more than the price of an SLR.

I will give you this one ;)What makes you think that other camera phone lenses are not made from Plastic?I would think all phone camera lenses are made from plastic after reading the explanation on how the lens was made

Thats fine. The good thing about modern cameras is you can turn off all the auto features and be left with manual focus, manual aperture selection, manual ISO selection, manual white balance selection etc etc and have complete control.

sir_bazz:That is exactly what I prefer, I shoot fully manual, to RAW, post-process every image. And about 1/3 of my pictures are focused manually anyway. I take AF as a nice to have feature, but do not depend on it. If the camera had a focusing screen suited for MF like the old models, I would use MF even more.

I like how camera makers need phone companies to force them to be innovative.

Honestly, how long did they think they could just keep increasing zoom range, adding in even more silly scene modes that work well less than half the time, and adding in more pixels?

You know what, maybe they don't need innovation since "real" photographers are inspired by the creative aesthetic of making your own work, not automating it, but for other people not on their pretentious high horse all the time, it makes life a lot easier to be able to focus less on getting good pictures to save memories, and focus more on doing the things that make the memories.

One day a major photojournalism prize is going to be won by a chap who held his iPhone over his head and clicked the shutter two dozen times, without knowing what he was shooting; the images were selected by the phone's app and transmitted directly to the picture desk. It'll raise all kinds of issues.

a good picture is a good picture. an iPhone is a tool that gives you a higher chance of being in the right place at the right time. from a business perspective, it makes sense to pay some guy who was there as long as the quality is doable than to pay some pro for some prettied up version of the same thing.

i'm not degrading the work and quality of pros; i'm just saying, an event is an event, a moment is a moment, a company isn't gonna sell less articles just because the highlights could have been better exposed and the DR could have been greater and the composition could have been more creative. big events sell themselves.

@jj74e: "i'm not degrading the work and quality of pros".Sorry - you are.There are people who make a living out of photography. They made a huge investment, not just in gear, but also in acquiring knowledge and skills. Like many professions, photography requires study and often sacrificing one's free time. If, say, someone in a magazine prefers to use a photograph he just downloaded from facebook rather than paying a professional to photograph a particular scene or event, how does that sound to you? If that magazine pays a few bucks to a kid with an iPhone, rather than paying a professional, is it OK for you?Photographers' fees cover all those hours spent studying and honing their skills, and incorporate the knowledge obtained and, of course, the investment in gear. And, if you think the quality of a photo taken by the kid with an iPhone is comparable to that taken by a professional, well... your "business perspective" is a twisted one.

VilardeMacedo says "...If, say, someone in a magazine prefers to use a photograph he just downloaded from facebook rather than paying a professional to photograph ... how does that sound to you? If that magazine pays a few bucks to a kid with an iPhone, rather than paying a professional, is it OK for you?"

It sounds perfectly fine to me. Technology has displaced economies and professions for centuries - from Gutenberg's press leaving monks without work (and loosening the grip of the church) to elevators with buttons eliminating the need for elevator operators - to site but two examples.

Why should photography be any different. There is still, to this day, a need for calligraphists (very few) and a need for lift operators in certain circumstances (very few). There will continue to be a need for skilled, dedicated image capturers; but some cases will be better addressed by spontaneous "amateurs" who now have the ability to be in the right place at the right time. Get used to it.

These "apps" are going to change things - perhaps not for professionals who don't use processing - Manual with RAW....

But in reality we have had "aps" for years - Aperture Mode, Automatic Mode, Zone metering - with huge profiles to pull from and all the other auto functions of the camera including flashes and metering all panned by "purists", but they have allowed mere mortals to get better shots.

Anyone who has used any of the panoramic modes, or Multiple exposure HDR has to be impressed - I have spent hours stitching/stacking photo's and still will for my best shots, but in reality for "documentation" or event photo's it is incredible what cameras can do now.

Forcing people to use/need/feel bad about using apps and such is a bit ridiculous, when I am at a tourist spot and see people taking pictures with their phone it seems a bit crazy to me - especially when they are in my way! While you may not like what phones can do today there is NO denying how much they have improved....

Some people here don't have a clue of what professional photography is, and wouldn't recognize a good photograph if it bit them on the leg. Shame. And they seem perfectly happy with mediocrity replacing professional brio, too. Sign of the times...

At the end of the day the person/group that makes it possible for there to be "professionals" are the ones paying the money for the end product - newspapers, magazines, art collectors, etc.

And if they don't feel the need to pay for a "superior" output because the picture on Facebook meets their needs, then guess what - how "good" a photograph might be is irrelevant.

It may still hold huge artistic value and meet all the criteria of what makes a truly great photo, but that doesn't mean someone is willing to pay for it, or needs to pay for it to achieve their objectives.

The quality of an image is not directly proportional to the value and need someone has for that image. In the past there were few economically accessible alternatives for catching a moment in time, and hence it was greatly limited to "professionals". The ubiquitousness of technology has changed that.

You can either accept that or delude yourself that just because something is "superior" it must be the choice.

Of course, HDF2. And some day lawyers will be replaced by smooth-talking wise guys because the latter can do the same job for much less; homeopathists will substitute for physicians because they make people feel better, and architects will be fired because there are so many teenage kids with great drawing skills."The future's so bright I gotta wear shades".

I get tired of reading about "Professional" cameras and photographers. Theres way too much snobbery. Professional just means you get paid for doing it. So if you get paid for your iPhone photo your a professional.And just because your a professional doesn't mean your any good.Digital photography has made life more difficult for the "Professional" but hard cheese. Lifes tough these days for all professions. So either live with it or get another job.

Manuel, just to site one example - lawyers. They too are being replaced in droves by technology. There are many activities that have traditionally been the domain of the legal profession which is now more effectively (and cheaply) carried out by technology.

Not everything lawyers do is replaceable and there will always be activities that well trained lawyers will be best placed to carry out. But for all the other stuff, those expensive law degrees of recent grads may prove more difficult to get a good return on investment.

It's no different for photographers who have invested in equipment. Some types of work (eg. portraits) are likely to remain mostly in "professional" hands, but photojournalism is probably on shakier ground given the purpose of those types of images.

You know, the NYT probably doesn't care much if an image has a bit of noise or moire if it captures the exact moment of the event.

You know, one day you'll grow up and see what the world really is like. For now it's alright to go on writing misinformed opinions. That's part of the growing process. Hopefully you'll become a discerning person in a couple of years. Or not.

Manuel, you seem to consider yourself an expert. I accept your superiority. Please elucidate for those of us less fortunate.

You can start by showing me where any of my comments are mis-informed or juvenile in their logic or exposition. Be specific.

You indirectly admit that entities previously using "pros" now also use sources that you consider inferior. Seems your opinion does not hold much sway with these sources, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The fact is that the more people are able to capture images of their surroundings in cheap, easy and relatively good quality (not professional level, but usable for the purposes required) the more certain types of professionals are going to lose business.

There will always be work for the Leibowitz's of the world or even good wedding photog, just not as much. That's the grown up world you seem to be ignoring.

You may not like the fact that the livelihood of some pros is threatened, but that's life. Get over it.

You misinterpreted what I wrote completely. Besides, this exchange of viewpoints has transcended photography and came to the politics and society arena. I understand you're spanish. I'm portuguese. Both our countries are suffering the pressure of speculation that will lead Spain into a financial crisis (Portugal has already got there). I find it hard to believe there are still people who find this system to be any good for the people. We're induced to buy, buy and buy - only to make stockholders and speculators even richer. Some may conform to it - I don't. Where you see innocuous apps, I see a manifestation of this consumerism that is leading towards an unfair, unequal society.And I'm not a professional photographer. I'm a lawyer who happens to have a passion for photography and knows many professional photographers. If life's hard for me, it's even harder for them. And I'm aware of copyright issues, too - and I don't like it when people applaud its systematic infringement.Vale? :)

I do not feel any pressure at all. I can easily do without this app stuff.I do not even use my Iphone or HTC one X for photography anymore.Not good enough for me. And i do not even consider myself to be very demanding with respect to image quality.

We need an camera app that will just make up the picture of our ideal friends in an ideal world with lots of sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns. It doesn't need to actually take a picture at all, just render some crud for us that is 'perfect'.

Now, if only someone would invent a camera that would remove distracting elements, perfectly balance exposure without ever needing filters or flash, pose the subjects, use acceptable composition strategies, not only look for missed expressions but also determine when a smile is "fake", then we wouldn't have to do anything at all!

Honestly, if you're investing in a camera, just learn to use the freak'n thing. Why you'd want a piece of software telling YOU whats best in YOUR images is beyond me. Why are you even taking photos if you can't retake it if it's crap? Seems simple enough.

Its amazing what mobile phones can do these days with the help of different apps. Its also a bit surprising that people are still interested in investing on professional mobile phones in spite of the features available on mobile cameras today. Cameras on mobile phones are definitely a big time threat to stand alone cameras thanks to apps such as the one mentioned above.

Photographers don't seriously use cameraphones, and this is understandable. Cameraphones are primarily used by non-photographers who are primarily interested in social networking, and this is fine, and perfectly understandable.

There is really no point in knocking Nokia, or any other phone manufacturer come to it, for pandering to this market with ever increasingly versatile phones.

@guyfawkes: You say that but.... OK I may not be a 'photographer' by your definition, but actually if I take out my 5D with the 70-300mm and need an (unexpected) wide-angle view I'm often glad of my Nokia N8. In good light the resolution (and depth of field!) is fantastic......

According to some news I read on a rumour site, Motorola is beta-testing some apps that detect facial expressions in order to exclude faces from the framing. The "Diarrhea" app, which turns the camera off whenever someone who is about to be photographed is having a sudden urge, is expected to be launched soon. Also, they're studying an app to discharge a whiff of Calvin Klein cologne when body odour is detected. It's called "Fart & Sweat". Finally, rumour has it that Siemens has filed a patent of an app that detects expressions of extreme grief and anguish and turns the image of the subject in a sepia portrait of his/her favourite philosopher: there will be the "Kierkegaard" and "Schopenhauer" modes, which turn on automatically when expressions of despair are detected and, for the existentialists, the "Heidegger" and "Sartre" modes, which are triggered when, in addition to anguish, traces of doubt are detected on the subject's face. Casio is said to have shown interest in these apps.

computer (internet) won't allow me to like your comment, understand i'm not a comment liking sort of a person, so maybe the machines are just being helpful, but anyway, you said what i wanted to say about commanders from armies of despotic (robot?) regimes shovelling bodies into open graves correct pathos recognition mode, but in a much lighter way, thanks, i'm off to buy stuff for the faraday cage my non-technical girlfriend has asked me to build and to disconnect the mains supply.

You take pictures as a form of artistic expression and want to control all aspects of that proess - makes sense.

However, most people for whom this app is targeted are trying to capture a simple moment in time with friends and family and don't really care much other than to have an image of a particular memory that they can print 4x6 or post on a blog/Facebook.

You don't need it, fine. Others for whom this is targeted will find it a welcome tool with which to ensure they capture the moment they really want to remember.

Honestly, if an app that corrects faces for you threatens you and makes you feel insecure about your establishment as a photographer, you must not be a very good one.

Convenience is not the same as killing intelligence. If you came down from your photo-throne once in awhile, you would find- GASP- people who take photos just for fun or just to save the memory. Even pros aren't on their pro-mindset all the time. Saving editing/re-taking photo time means more time to make the memories that make life special

But, in defense of the OC (original commenter? lol), actually, stupider IS a word. But that's the only defense he gets.

I am sorry, I can't possibly be the only one who's getting a spinning head by this kind of horsesh**.

Taking photos is something you do in spare time, for your enjoyment. Who in their right mind could possibly enjoy beeing robbed of 90% of the entire process?

Manufactorers act as they're bringing relief to the *chore* that is "mainstream photography". If its such a tedious process of taking a picture, why would you bother in the first place? Because its a social norm to take pictures of shiny happy people in the grass? Come on >_<

Why not take this further and invent something like an automated tennis rack for the hobbyist? It would play 10 times as good as the newbie consumer who cant even get a stupid portrait straight (see what I did there?) and guess what, you wouldnt even have to play on your own anymore! Pffff, stupid hobbies, wasting all your precious time.

Oh, and also make an article on the frontpage of some big website so that people can go apeshit crazy about it >___<

I'm sure you believe in-camera cropping and on-screen guide lines are also horsesh**?

This is just add-on to make capturing nice moments easier. Instead of taking several shots and asking people to wait and pose for a couple of more pictures, you have the option to combine the best expressions on the spot. Quicker and easier.

Why is this an argument? "They" are not removing serious camera's when they make these "convenience devices". Every wedding that cares enough (generally) of course will hire a professional photographer as well as put out Kodak box camera's -or be disspointed......

If you "purists" out there want the good old days use film - and then you won't be on this bulletin board - what I would like would be tips on how to get the best out of ANY medium that I am stuck with at the time - I am not bringing my 5D, lenses, flashes and light kit when going out to dinner with friends - no I have not tried it ;)

"the day is near.. not .. use .. brains"???? What is that? I must say when I use my IPhone to take pictures - sometimes in HDR mode - I always get comments that my pictures look good (for what they are) as I can change the exposure level, focus point as well as pick the best lighting, angle and arrangement - not my proudest moment, but they do make some great shots...

Of course this will happen, but it may take another couple of OS before advanced camera features are consistently available to third party developers. Before then we'll have a few models with custom apps provided by the manufacturer (Nokia is in the lead for this, it seems.) In the long run, Samsung and Sony look to be in the best position as making a decent smartphone is much easier than making a good small camera. Nokia may manage, but they'd better hope Windows 8 is amazing. It looks promising to me, but I'm not a big Apple fan and Android's many imperfections bug me daily, so I'm open to a new phone OS.

Well done, Nokia!!! Cannot wait for the next step: millions pictures preloaded, complete with gps cohordinates. A single (virtual) click on the touch screen, the camera sorts out for you the best picture for your gps position and you will feel as happy as you'd taken that picture yourself.

Why is it "Nokia app" does this? How about the bajillion iPhone apps that already have been putting this pressure for several YEARS now?

Give me a break, DPReview, this is just poor reporting. Is Nokia paying you?

Seriously.

It's about time that camera makers open-source their firmwares or at least create an API for developers to run apps on the cameras. I'm so sick and tired of the terrible camera interfaces that Japanese makers come up with. Please just give me an OM-D or 5D Mk III body with a slot for my iPhone instead of the annoying Japanese interface..

Just one use case that I had recently: Overlay an image on top of live view. In the end I had to revert to my Android phone with an app called Camera ZOOM FX and its Composite effect. Of course there are firmware hacks, e.g. for Canon cameras, that add features, but these hacks are comparatively primitive.

Canon's Remote Capture can do this, I use it quite often when I want to copy the setup of a previous pack shot. But having it on the camera could be handy too.

The difficult thing is drawing the line between silly toys (adding flowery borders) and genuinely useful (picking the best faces for a group shot - if it's seamless enough). And of course my 'toy' is another person's must-have feature.

Apps could be nice. I guess Canon/Nikon/Sony etc are to slow to addsuch a feature very soon. It must had been Nokia/Apple/Google or somethinglike that. A Google mirrorless system camera would maybe be interesting, skipthe phone. Or make a camera with basic mobile phone features, not as wegot it today the oposit (primary phone, and a basic camera).

But face detection or this "happy face detection" is useless for me who shoot primary landscape. Also I won't smile on demand :)

OK, slight disclaimer, the following could be seen as trolling, but I really do think a lot of people are rather idiotic about such things....

More likely the Canon strategists think "some of our stupider customers will think that our cameras are somehow less professional if we choose to add apps, and these people are likely to be disproportionately vocal on internet forums, so even though apps could usefully enhance the product we'll let someone else do it first".

I just upgraded from an iphone 4s to a nokia lumia 900, and can't believe how much better it does everything, nokia just had the wrong operating system on their phones, and with windows phone 8 about ready, it's only gonna get better.

It's true that the Lumia 900 won't get WinPhone8, but it will get most, if not all, of the same features in a 7.8 upgrade. The difference is that WinPhone8 requires a different chipset which is why it won't work on the current Lumia phones.

So, while it's true that current Lumia users won't get WinPhone8, the conclusion that Lumia users are going to be abandoned just isn't accurate.

Nokia is for old people? because the young people are sheep who follow the mass of uninformed followers.Good thing we are not all hipsters who eats up everything Apple and Copy Master Samsung feeds us.

I see your point, but is freezing a micro-instant in time actual reality either?

The reality is we don't see the middle person half blinking when we take the photo, we see all three smiling at the camera saying cheese. So maybe think of it more as 'long exposure' to capture what we see with our own eyes, ie instead of being the best over 1/250th second in time, it would be the best over 1 or 2 seconds in time which would be more realistic in terms of matching what we actually see.

I have no real problems with this technique. Taking a rapid series of images and make a photo sounds perfectly fine to me. What concerns me is that it is hard to make it high quality. Things move and areas are obscured. There will be borders where data have to be made up. Maybe its not Hi Fi photography, as so many other fun stuff.

The Nokia 808 does shoot in Raw with 41 MP and Carl Zeiss optics I'm sure Samsung will copy this on your phone with Samsung optics ;) But hey if you listen to Apple, then the only camera you will ever need is an iPhone

Searching the internets I see no raw shooting capacity for the Nokia 808, got a link with samples?

There's the depth of field problem.

The PureView 5MP out of 41 trick does seem promising--particularly in daylight.

Perhaps Sony/Nikon will adapt this for the sensors in the D3200, Nex 5n and the D800, and improve things like shooting at ISO 6400.

I wonder does this PureView technology process raw data, or is that jpeg data?

Samsung is unlikely to make the mistake of pixel cramming in their phones--they already make the world's most popular smart phones.

Anyone who'd claim that the iPhone is the only camera one needs, would likely claim that it's not important to check engine oil quality and quantity in an automobile--the sensors can do it.

I guess Nokia could always add the raw feature and then sell this PureView software as an application for PCs and Macs, then Nokia's 808 camera phone may get some respect from those who care about a picture's qualities.

Samsung is a South Korean company, also many in the south would like a reunited Korea, but one that is open to the world, not ruled by a family dynasty of dictators with a government enforced cult of personality. (Also North Korea is a country, not in need of reuniting--that's another problem with your languange.)

You really need to attempt to present yourself to the world as less ignorant.

It's not fan fiction to say that Samsung makes the most popular "smart" phones in the world.

You clearly haven't bothered to look at the high end Samsung TVs.

Nor have you looked at the colour changes in your engine oil.

Now why would you want someone who'd challenge your "authority" sent to live in a closed dictatorship? Isn't that the inclination of those who hold a less than secure footing in facts. And in fact very like dictators the world over?

That link does not mention the Nokia 808, camera or phone. The link does talk about something called the N900.

Next problem with this purported "proof", this linked webpage mentions raw, but then goes into how this N900 shoots HDR. HDR is not the same as RAW, though HDR can be done to raw files. (Albeit whatever the file type used for HDR there'd be the limitation that the scene would need to be still.)

Some other problems with this "proof", from Wikipedia, the N900 was released in 2008, so is not somehow the same as the N808.

Then of course this 2010 FCamera software is not likely to tweak the N808 to shoot raw. (That some future variation of this FCamera software may be released to allow the N808 to shoot raw in the is certainly possible.)

So getting the terms "Nokia" and "raw" on the same webpage does not mean that the N808 shoots raw.

Last, and simply put, your "proof" is wrong. And the Nokia 808 does not record raw data. Too bad.

You've been proven wrong about the raw shooting capacity of the Nokia 808. You seem confused by what you've claimed and also what you've read. Try putting in more effort at apprehension.

Not claiming that Zeiss lens[es] are plastic just that the Zeiss lens in this phone is plastic. Both the interview I read with the Zeiss designer of this lens and the pictures of the lens cut with a saw back me up.

Link explaining the use of plastic lenses in cellphones: http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/03/05/nokia-808-pureview-carl-zeiss-science-of-making-the-perfect-lens/

I think that hits the nail on the head. Today's cameras are very powerful computers that could run apps easily. I always said there should be some basic script language available, but of course having access to the hardware through an app would be much better. I doubt camera manufacturers will go that way. In theory it's great, but it's a nightmare to support from a manufacturer's point of view. Every camera has different features and hardware.

Everything has a time. It took camera phones and tablets. Long past when cameras should have been programmable. Even earlier Olympus cameras (SP-320) had an amazing range of post-exposure processing you could do to an image (Now ... upload that), but that tack seems to have been dropped as software programs like Photoshop Elements prevailed. Now, we can go BACK to the FUTURE.